Gavin B. Davis v. California

(1) Did the 4th Dist., Div. 1, Court of Appeal, California, err in its (a) inquiry and (b) application of Boykin / Tahl1 analysis under its (c) “totality of circumstances” standard of review in relying on an (d) incomplete and erroneous factual record2 in denying Appellant’s appeal of his timely and diligent Withdraw of Plea (April 23, 2018) efforts prior to Sentencing (June 7, 2018); where, Petitioner states that (e) there is substantially more than a reasonable probability3 1 See Boykin v. Ala. 395 U.S 238, 243 (1969); In re Tahl, 1 Cal. 3d 122, 132 (1969) 2 See e.g., D074186, Petition for Rehearing, with Attorney John O. Lanahan, commenting, in part, “the [cjourt overlooked [Petitioner’s] statements in open court that contradicted, rather that supplemented, the waiver of rights he had initialed on the change of plea form” (pg. 5-6) and “minute orders and his own statements at the change of plea hearing show that he believed the only way he would be released was if he pleaded guilty,” (Id., pg. 6) (Appendix F) in support that the factual basis and procedural background presented in the opinion are inaccurate including but not limited to overlooking such minute orders, actions and intent, and oral dialogue, where Petitioner at many instances in the record raised considerable doubt as to what rights he was waiving in exchange for his immediate (i.e. same day) own recognizance return to pre-trial liberty while not being provided the alternative (i.e. a bail review motion as previously repeatedly calendared); and, therefore, reliance on a partial and/or incorrect fact pattern 3 A low threshold without substantial burden of proof